my 2 cents

Paying for news

No, I don't mean paying for a newspaper.  I'm talking about news organizations -- papers, TV, cable or others -- paying sources for their stories.  It goes against the rules of journalism, but it seems more so-called legitimate news organizations have been doing it.

Paying for "exclusive" stories used to be pretty much the domain of the gossip and sensationalist tabloids, who justifyably had little credibility.  But lately, real and respected news organizations like ABC News have admitted to paying for stories.  They call it a "licensing fee" but let's call it what it is -- checkbook journalism.  It calls into question the accuracy of the source: are they lying, or exaggerating to make the story more sensational and, thus, worth more money to the source?  We, the news consumers, may never know.

Wayne Friedman, writing in his "Full Frontal Television" column at MediaPost, wonders if the less-glamorous stories as told by non-paid, non "inside" sources are less compelling as drama, might newscasts lose audiences and, thus, sponsors, thereby making it more difficult to suppport news. 

Will networks be tempted, he wonders, to try to beef up their news stories by opening their checkbooks to sources, legitimate or not, to reveal details -- real or imagined?

Let's hope not. News is news, not fiction or entertainment.

 

 

Are media 'fat cats' good for the public?

Broadcasting & Cable Magazine reports that the FCC is in the process of conducting a series of studies to determine the impact, if any, on news coverage by allowing multiple ownership and cross-ownership of media outlets. 

Before FCC rule changes that took place in the early and late 2000s, companies were prevented from owning more than 1 or 2 radio stations and/or a TV station in a market.  Media companies, particularly newspaper publishers, had been able to own a local TV and/or radio station in their market, but only one.  Examples included The New York Times, which owned classical station WQXR; The Dallas Morning News, which owned WFAA radio and TV; The Tribune Company, which owned The Chicago Tribune and WGN radio and TV (the call letters stood for World's Greatest Newspaper) and The Daily News, WPIX-TV and an FM station in New York.

But media companies got greedy and the FCC, in 2007, supported their greed by permitting them to own an unlimited number of media outlets in a single market.  So the big broadcasters, now part of even bigger media comglomerates like Universal (NBC), Comcast/Viacom (CBS), Disney (ABC) and News Corp. (FOX) bought more media outlets.  Newspaper giant Gannett joined in. In the New York market, for example, one company now owns both major all-news radio stations along with several other music stations, a major network affilate and some of the cable companies that deliver the TV station to consumers' homes.  Another media conglomerate owns 2 of the city's 6 major commercial TV stations, and two of the city's four major daily papers.

Multiple outlets enable the media companies to share resources including news reports, trimming costs and helping profits.  For PR folks, it often means fewer places for us to pitch stories.  For the news-consuming public, it often means less variety in reporting.

The FCC, according to Broadcasting & Cable, is not seeing any negative impact on news coverage due to multiple and cross ownership.  But I fear the FCC is evaluating the quantity of news, not quality of reporting. 

The danger of having so much of the media owned by a few big companies can be felt in many ways.  These companies -- only 5 or 6 now -- have the power to lobby for regulations in their favor, such as further easing of cross-ownership rules.  With only a few media companies in control, there's the risk of less news getting out to the public, along with a decrease in the variety of editorial viewpoints.

The public risks becoming less informed than ever on things happening in government and in business that impact us all.

So as media fat cats get fatter, the public that relies on the media for news and information may end up with less news and information, if not in quantity, then possibly in diversity of coverage and point of view.  And that's not good news. 

 

 

 

 

Hyper-local news takes a hit, but there's hope

 

Newspaper giant Gannett had launched a hyper-local online news service two years ago, hoping half its content would be comprised of user-generated material and that it would bring added local advertising revenue.  The service included sites covering more than two dozen towns in New Jersey, under the heading InJersey.com.

Gannett last week announced it was shutting the sites down, as a result of more massive layoffs throughout the company  -- this time, about 700 jobs are being cut.  Gannett says their reporting staff has been cut too thin to handle such local reporting, while the sales staff is also so thin that they simply can’t do the job of seeking hyper-local advertisers.  They also say the audience hasn’t been large enough too attract many advertisers.

So as Gannett continues cut local news coverage in its regional print newspapers, its experiment with local news online has fizzled.

An interesting ray of hope in the area of hyper-local news and information is something called Patch.com.  Formed in March of 2010, it’s now in 22 states and the District of Columbia, providing professionally written news for some 875 localities.  I don’t know what their business model looks like, but I do see local and national ads on their sites, and I hear people in communities they serve referring to Patch as an important local news source.

The Patch website says Patch is run by professional editors, writers, photographers and videographers who live in or near the communities they serve, with support from a team in its New York City headquarters. The site says they look for communities of 15,000 -100,000 population that are underserved by media and would benefit by having access to local news and information about government, schools and business. These could be inner-city neighborhoods or distinct towns.

Readers and PR people take note.  Patch.com is something to keep an eye on.

 

 

Local broadcast has economic impact

 

Local is a key word when it comes to news.  We need to know about national and international news, but it's often the things happening right down our street or at the local town hall that impact us most directly on a day-to-day basis.

So it's ironic that local traditional media outlets are struggling.  We know all too well of the downward spiral in the newspaper business, but local TV and radio are also fighting to stay alive and relevant.

Local broadcast is a big business.  A study by the National Association of Broadcasters and reported by MediaPost estimates that the local broadcast business employs more than 300,000 people directly and in support businesses, generating more than $49 billion annually to the nation's GDP.  Local broadcast is big: 1,370 commercial TV stations and more than 11,700 local radio stations.  The industry supports tens of thousands of jobs in advertising and PR, as well as dozens of other support and related fields.

On top of these impressive economic statistics is the huge societal impact of local TV and radio.  In addition to being a widely-used source of free entertainment, radio and TV are also primary sources of local news and information for most of us.  A separate report just out from Arbitron says although radio's ad revenue is still down nearly 20 percent from a few years ago, its audience is bigger than it's ever been. Radio reaches 74 percent of the U.S. population, a one percent increase over a year ago.  In raw numbers, that translates to 174.3 million listeners every week.

Despite its size, local broadcast faces some huge challenges.  It continues to fight for a bigger slice of the advertising pie, now battling cable and satellite broadcast services and the growing number of local online news and entertainment platforms. 

It's not an easy road.

 

 

What PR people don't like about PR

 

The public relations news site Ragan.com recently published results of a poll they took to find what those of us who work in public relations dislike about our jobs.

The survey listed five things, but had no place for open-ended comments.  Top-ranked among the five was cold pitching, with 49 percent of those who answered listing that as their top work peeve. 

Most people don't like rejection, and the odds are working against you when you cold-call an editor or reporter.  There are ways to improve your chances, and most experienced and professional PR people know what they are.  First, if time permits, send your pitch in an email, letter or fax before you make the follow-up call.  Second, be aware of deadlines and avoid making your follow-up call as deadline approaches.  If you do get to speak to the person, before you launch into your pitch, ask if this is a good time to talk.  If it's not, ask when is a better time for you to call.

These three tips can help improve your chances of success with cold calls.

The second most common peeve was having your news releases heavily edited. Seventeen percent cited that as their pet peeve.  If you don't like having your words edited, then perhaps PR is not the field for you.  Of course, beginning with a well-written news release can often minimize the chances of heavy editing.  But if you have a boss or client who likes to edit, then you'll just have to live with it.  If the edits are making the release unreadable, then you need to speak up.   But if you want to have your words go out to the world unedited, consider starting a blog.

Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they hate crazy deadlines.  Once again, deadlines come with the territory.  Often, proper planning can help avoid those last-minute hassles, but not always.

The next pet peeve is being permanently attached to your smartphone, with 14 percent.  The new technology that keeps us constantly connected is fantastic, but it also a big problem.  There is a very simply way to deal with it when it becomes a problem... use the "Off" button.  We all have a right to our own time, and none of us is paid to be available 24/7, except in an emergency.  Bosses and clients need to understand that they can't call you at 3 in the morning.  Groundrules need to be established, and if you don't clearly delineate them, you will be taken advantage of.

Finally, five percent said they dislike the lack of sleep.  Again, this comes down to setting some groundrules.  Many PR agencies have an unfortunate reputation for working new people to the bone -- paying them for 8 or 9 hours a day, but expecting 15 or 20 from them.  Those agencies are making good money off the backs of what is essentially cheap labor.  To advance, you need to work hard.  But you are not a slave and you have no one to blame but yourself if you let yourself be exploited by working crazy hours all the time.

So.. what are your biggest complaints about working in PR?

 

 

 

Happy 4th!

... from

   New York City

 

Good news (for a change) in Magazine-land

There's some encouraging news, for a change, in the world of print -- at least on the magazine side of print. 

Fewer magazines folded during the first half of 2011, compared to a year ago.  MediaPost today reports on a survey by MediaFinder that shows a 15 percent drop in magazine closings so far this year.  Last year, 87 titles shut down during the first six months, while so far this year only 74 stopped publication.

This year to date, 138 new magazines  have launched, up 53 percent from a year ago.  This year's number is 138, versus 90 through June of 2010.  Most of the new launches have been in the food and regional interest categories.

Thirty-four new B-to-B titles began publication so far this year, more than offsetting 13 that shuttered during the period.  Among those, sadly, were Brandweek and MediaWeek.

The MediaFinder survey covers magazines published in the U.S. and Canada.